Disposed¶22

Nisha v. MCD through Its Deputy Commissioner & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/12217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized construction / demolition directions sought against MCD in Delhi HC writ petition; petitioner's title claim via GPA, Agreement to Sell and affidavit treated as disputed and not adjudicated; Show Cause Notice and Work Stop Notice dated 12.08.2025 already issued; petition and pending application disposed of with no further orders. Keywords: unauthorized construction, demolition, MCD, STF, locus standi, title dispute, affidavit attestation, work stop notice, disposed. No statutes or precedent cases cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

No demolition directions or other orders passed; the petition, along with the pending application, was disposed of as MCD had already initiated requisite action against the unauthorized construction. ¶22

Nisha Vs MCD through Its Deputy Commissioner & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No demolition directions or other orders passed; the petition, along with the pending application, was disposed of as MCD had already initiated requisite action against the unauthorized construction.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct respondent no. 1 (MCD) to demolish the unauthorized construction being carried out by respondent nos. 4 and 5 at property RZ-82, Tughlakabad Extension, Gali no. 10, Govindpuri, Delhi - 110019. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Since MCD had already initiated requisite action against the unauthorized construction in the property, no further orders were required to be passed by this Court in the petition.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

This Court declined to enter into the disputed questions of title and ownership of the petitioner in the property in question.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (single judge, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna), order dated 13.08.2025 in W.P.(C) 12217/2025 & CM APPL. 49793/2025: Petitioner Nisha, asserting proprietorship of 50 sq. yards out of a 150 sq. yard property at RZ-82, Tughlakabad Extension, Gali no. 10, Govindpuri, Delhi-110019 (basis on record limited to a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and affidavit), sought directions to MCD to demolish unauthorized construction carried out by respondent nos. 4 and 5. Counsel for respondent no. 1 (MCD) and respondent no. 3 (STF) highlighted that the petitioner's stated address was at Bareily, Uttar Pradesh, while her supporting affidavit was attested in New Delhi without indicating she was in Delhi at attestation. Counsel for MCD reported that a Show Cause Notice and a Work Stop Notice dated 12.08.2025 had already been issued and that action would be taken in accordance with law. Held: the Court would not go into disputed questions of title and ownership; since MCD had already initiated requisite action against the unauthorized construction, no further orders were required; the petition, along with the pending application, was disposed of. No statutory provision or precedent case was cited or discussed.

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 12217/2025 & CM APPL. 49793/2025 NISHA .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Hasnain Ali, Advocate (through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

MCD THROUGH ITS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & ORS.

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Bharat Malhotra and Ms. Shipra, Advocates Mob: 8447151507 Email: [email protected] Mr. Vivekanand Mishra, SPC for R-2 Mob: 9811429926 Email: [email protected] Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, Advocate for R-3 Mob: 9560536975 Email: [email protected]

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

13.08.2025

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent no. 1 – Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), to demolish the unauthorized construction at property no. RZ-82, Tughlakabad Extension, Gali no. 10, Govindpuri, Delhi - 110019 , being carried out by respondent nos. 4 and 5.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:34:46

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1-MCD, as well as the respondent no. 3-Special Task Force (“STF”), submit that while the property in question is in Govindpuri, Delhi, the address of the petitioner is that of Bisharatganj, Bareily, Uttar Pradesh-243302.

¶16

It is submitted that the petitioner has merely made an averment in the petition that the petitioner is the proprietor of the property, which is subject matter of the present writ petition. However, copy of only the General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell and an affidavit, have been filed.

¶17

Though, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had not appeared before this Court in the first instance, however, during the dictation of the present order, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has appeared through Video Conferencing (“ VC”) and submits that the property in question, which is subject matter of the present writ petition, measures 150 sq. yards, out of which the petitioner is the owner of 50 sq. yards. 5. Thus, he submits that since unauthorized construction is going on in the property in question, the present petition has been filed. 6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD submits that a Show Cause Notice and a Work Stop Notice dated 12^th August, 2025, with respect to unauthorized construction in the property in question, has already been issued and an action shall be taken by the MCD, in accordance with law.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the MCD further submits that the present affidavit shows the address of the petitioner in Bareily, Uttar Pradesh, while the attestation has been done in New Delhi, without mentioning whether the petitioner was in Delhi at the time of attestation of the said affidavit.

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:34:46

¶21

This Court shall not go into the disputed questions, as regards the title and ownership of the petitioner in the property in question.

¶22

Taking note of the fact that the MCD has already initiated requisite action against the unauthorized construction in the property in question, no further orders are required to be passed by this Court in the present petition. 10. The present petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶24

AUGUST 13, 2025 ak

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 12:34:46

Nisha v. MCD through Its Deputy Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha v. MCD through Its Deputy Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Deepak Duggal Vs Delhi Development Authority

Kings Dorian Exports Vs Irfan

M/S Elementto Lifestyles Vs Mr. Deepak Singh Bora

Santosh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Bls International Services Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Gvr Infra Projects Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Tpf Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Anr.

Tpf Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs National Highways Authority of India & Anr.

Uei Global Education Private Limited Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited & Ors.

Surajmal Memorial Education Society through Its Duly Authorized Person Sh Ajit Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Uei Global Education Private Limited Vs Abhishek Gupta & Ors.

Om Pal Singh Vs Dy. Commissioner (Mcd North East District)

Jatin Bagga Vs the Commissioner MCD of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Ram Niwas Goel Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi